So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker.
It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic.
It is not a surprise that obfuscation should surround this topic and individual. The intentional obfuscation of language by the autocratically minded has been well know so long that Orwell wrote a book about it. Pseudo intellectuals like De Gobineau have been doing it for generations to cover absurd ideas they want to believe. Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck. Which reminds us that charlatans and scientology-like cultist also do it: A person no one would have heard of can shoot to fame, influence and extra cash when done right.
What's remarkable is that people still fall for it. When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal.
It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam, with ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any. I suspect the followers tend to be isolated people of underwhelming accomplishment and without life direction. Historically anyway, this has been the group that gets targeted.
>Here you have completely manufactured reality
This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else. It does not. And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article. Thus the utterance and it's implications are correctly linked.
>What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it.
I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people. Possibly only a narrow slice of software requires clarity. There's an API for hackernews one could query and maybe analyze a bit.
Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken. Why the chant to lock up politic opponents doesn't cause alarm. And why a self made holocaust survivor who aids pro-democracy movements worldwide can be turned into an omnipresent boogie man.
Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy. The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable. It's nice the Times is drawing attention to it.
At any rate, today's blinding emotions are not too surprising given the extremism sown by wanna be autocrats, commentators maximizing an audience and foreign dictatorships seeking to disrupt democracies with divisions.
That topics beyond software are posted is entirely good. Software is made for a purpose, often altruistic, usually by bright people. No doubt this why the most progressive part of the county is the center of it; a place attracting experimentation since before the summer of love. Since, to the thoughtful, software is a tool not an end and, since this site uniquely still embraces that idea, it covers a broad range of reality based issues and problems from business opportunities to social ones like radicalization. I regret, like most of the web with unlimited user contribution, that it is so trivially vandalized.
>I'm very curious to know if you are able to believe anything else is happening here.
I can not speak to the intent of posting, I assume for entertainment. But maybe practice for rhetoric class, maybe a Molyneux acolyte. It's not really relevant, only what is written matters. But as an aside, it does strongly resemble an argument between college students with an emphasis, even over application, of a particular epistemic theory rather than more substantive concrete analysis. Which is fun of course.
The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion, the topic of discussion is one specific utterance, and very specific claims that you are making based upon it.
> So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker.
You are restating your claim in a different way, but this provides no evidence or solid reasoning. I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic is acceptable.
> It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic...
There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase, other than the one you created.
> ...just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect
Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?
> ...and just obfuscates the more important topic
I'm not obfuscating (or even disagreeing with) another topic, I am asking you to provide evidence for the specific claim you made. Drawing attention to other "more important" topics is a common way to avoid doing so, but I shall persist in asking for evidence or reasoning.
> Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck.
Could be, but you're claiming he is a white supremacist who supports/advocates eugenics based on a single phrase he used in a 2+ hour long unscripted discussion. It appears you haven't even listened to the segment of the talk that you are using as evidence, because he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming.
> What's remarkable is that people still fall for it.
Not so much to me, based on what you've fallen for without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said. The human mind is easily tricked, sometimes even when the trick is shown to them.
> When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal.
As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.
> It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam
Is "easy solution to the world's problems" what he proclaims to be selling? That sounds more like a story an active imagination would make up to rationalize a belief that lacks evidence.
> ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any
That's a bit rich considering the argument you're putting forth in your accusation of him.
>> Here you have completely manufactured reality
> This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else.
You have not provided any evidence that it means what you say it does. Try to find something on Google that agrees with you and link it here.
> It does not.
Please provide evidence or reasoning that supports this assertion.
> And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article.
Another claim. Let me guess, you won't be substantiating this one either?
> I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people.
Well, I'm talking to one right now, but s/he seems highly reluctant to shed any light on the matter. It's not too late though!
> Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken.
Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me.
Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters, but it's people who are otherwise intelligent who will readily believe even more extraordinary (and specific) things, like accusations of Nazism or eugenics advocacy, despite no evidence that is so intriguing to me.
> Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy.
I bet this is your imagination working again. Regardless, Noam Chomsky has a theory of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU
> The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable.
As is the process leading to a belief that there are people doing as you describe.
> It's not really relevant....
How individuals behave varies on their conscious and subconscious perceptions of other people, and typically there is no self-awareness of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
> ...only what is written matters.
And simultaneously, the actual words someone speaks don't matter, but the contradictory (to the actual spoken words) interpretation of the listener does, and can even be used as a proof?
Of course the lebensborn program was integral with the wider eugenics sterilization program but perhaps we think Molyneux wants to skip that part.
Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena. "Whole" is clearly not selective breeding of .5% of the population.
He also refers to _cleaning_ the gene pool ie removing "bad" genes. A breeding program alone won't clean any genes.
So the meaning is completely clear, especially in context not in-spite of it.
As an aside, the absurd use of language and the poor guy who hopes to become one of the select few with the right genes is an archetype of the cult leader/follower relation with its nonsensical parallel reality.
Actually, what I'm looking for is some evidence or reasoning that supports your claims of Molyneux advocating white supremacy or eugenics.
> Of course the lebensborn program was integral with the wider eugenics sterilization program but perhaps we think Molyneux wants to skip that part.
Unless you can demonstrate an ability to read minds, your perception of what Molyneux thinks doesn't count as evidence.
> Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena.
Does it? Please excerpt the literal words he's used so I know you're not using your imagination.
> So the meaning is completely clear, especially in context not in-spite of it.
We shall see when you provide the evidence (actual spoken words) supporting your new claim.
> "absurd use of language", "nonsensical parallel reality"
Indeed.
EDIT: I'm not seeing the other post that goes with the "double" warning?
Excerpt the phrase at the top of this thread? The one we've been talking about for two days and which you just said was about his daughter?
It is "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up". In context, it is preceded by a monologue that includes talk about creating breeding lines by changing peoples ideology and is followed by his daughter's permitted dating partners ending with the goal of creating "supermen".
>> On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener.
> Yes, because phrase has a broadly accepted prior meaning
There are results for similar phrases, but not that exact one just as there are results for phrases about "cleaning up" the gene pool but not Molyneux's exact words. Yet both are easily understood.
But if I noticed my bug statement was too shocking for the guys listening (maybe insulting a team by being so blunt about their code) I might walk it back by saying "I don't let my daughter write crazy code". Which is not particularly coherent and certainly does not make the sentence about my daughter. Nor change what it means nor its referent nor the impact it has.
Indeed, in order to conclude it is a reference to his daughter (because it's insisted that meaning is only unknowable to mind readers), we would have to consciously dismiss the entire video and society the ideas come from except for the single reference to his daughter. Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool. Or more generously, cleaning most of it.
The most generous we could possibly be to Molyneux (and then only if this video were his one and only) is to say that he's only referring to the "good" part of the nazi program (it's obviously the nazi program because he even uses the term "supermen"). Next we have to dismiss the phrase that clearly refers to the integral bad part as merely a verbal coincidence, a complete accident uttered when he was actually thinking about his daughter. And even this still leaves him and his followers looking for the "good" in nazism.
Ah, I've made a mistake, thanks for noticing.
So, let's backtrack to your prior comment then:
> Except the phrase in question refers to the _whole_ breeding arena. "Whole" is clearly not selective breeding of .5% of the population.
Is it your position that "whole" unequivocally (in a way that is clear and unambiguous) refers to the human population on planet earth? No other meaning could possibly be derived or intended? For example, when he says "Most of them will need to be bred, and they need to be bred in an environment uncontaminated by the endless bullshit of the old world", is it not possible that he is referring to the various environmental factors in which his daughter is raised?
How about when he says: "I can subject myself to my crazy (say, there's that word again) family of origin. I cannot subject my child, and I really don't have much of a right to subject my wife to it either. It wasn't her god damn fault"? You interpret the "crazy people" he's talking about in this clip to not be his family, which is what he literally says, but rather that he is referring to....non-white people? And the "cleaning up" he refers to cannot possibly refer to keeping his "crazy family of origin" away from his daughter (which is what he did), but rather the only possible intended meaning is to advocate eugenics?
If so, would it be too much to ask you to include the relevant portions of the transcript (or, a link to the video you're working from, with timestamps....I'm looking at https://youtu.be/sgBUGpXz9-8) that substantiates this interpretation?
> In context, it is preceded by a monologue that includes talk about creating breeding lines by changing peoples ideology
I don't see any problem with this. I certainly try to teach my children an ideology (knowing the difference between right and wrong, fairness, inclusiveness, sharing, kindness, love, understanding, responsibility, rationality, honesty, humility, etc) and I very much hope they marry someone similarly minded, have children, raise them according to a similar (or improved) ideology, and spread it to as many people in their lives as possible.
> ...and is followed by his daughter's permitted dating partners
Timestamp of that please.
> with the goal of creating "supermen"
A eugenically bred race of Aryans undoubtedly? No other intended meaning is possible?
> There are results for similar phrases, but not that exact one just as there are results for phrases about "cleaning up" the gene pool but not Molyneux's exact words.
Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.
> Yet both are easily understood.
Cleaning up the gene pool has a generally accepted meaning. But did he say we need to clean up the gene pool? Google isn't coming up with anything. I wonder, does Molyneux maybe have an inside man at Google that wipes all these facts you know about him from their index?
> Indeed, in order to conclude it is a reference to his daughter (because it's insisted that meaning is only unknowable to mind readers)...
Or, you could just listen to the words he literally says, and be mindful of your subconscious injecting additional meaning.
> we would have to consciously dismiss the entire video and society the ideas come from except for the single reference to his daughter
Once again, because you say so right? If there is any uncertainty, the default meaning is obviously genocide (because "that's how language works" maybe)? No need to provide a reasoned argument with specific supporting quotes from what he's actually said?
> Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool. Or more generously, cleaning most of it.
Timestamp of this please.
> The most generous we could possibly be to Molyneux (and then only if this video were his one and only) is to say that he's only referring to the "good" part of the nazi program (it's obviously the nazi program because he even uses the term "supermen")
Obviously? Not just likely, but literally impossible that he could have intended another meaning?
Literally no other historic meanings or noteworthy occurences of the word "superman/men"?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/superman-philosophy
Superman, German Übermensch, in philosophy, the superior man, who justifies the existence of the human race. “Superman” is a term significantly used by Friedrich Nietzsche, particularly in Also sprach Zarathustra (1883–85), although it had been employed by J.W. von Goethe and others. This superior man would not be a product of long evolution; rather, he would emerge when any man with superior potential completely masters himself and strikes off conventional Christian “herd morality” to create his own values, which are completely rooted in life on this earth. Nietzsche was not forecasting the brutal superman of the German Nazis, for his goal was a “Caesar with Christ’s soul.” George Bernard Shaw popularized the term “superman” in his play Man and Superman (1903).
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm https://study.com/academy/lesson/nietzsches-bermensch-concep...
Is George Bernard Shaw also a Nazi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_and_Superman
How about David Bowie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supermen
> Next we have to dismiss the phrase that clearly refers to the integral bad part as merely a verbal coincidence...
Clearly.
> a complete accident uttered when he was actually thinking about his daughter.
Of course, it's simply not possible he was referring to his daughter, even though he specifically is discussing raising her in the surrounding context of that phrase. No, the only logical, evidence-based conclusion that makes sense, is that he was referring to non-whites, even though they aren't mentioned.
PS: I had a few questions in this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20147204) post as well - just a friendly reminder, don't mean to rush you.
No, it could be hyperbole for "most" and possibly refer solely to a subset of nations with "genetic potential", as we know from previous attempts at implementation.
>is it not possible that he is referring to the various environmental factors in which his daughter is raised
He is. The genetic cleansing phrase is not about the daughter. And assuming Molyneux has a minimal scientific literacy, he was not and could not be thinking of her when he said it because environmental factors are not passed on through breeding.
>You interpret the "crazy people" he's talking about in this clip to not be his family
I _do_ think that part is just about his family. Because, as pointed out by the topmost comment, the phrase actually refers to ethnic cleansing not "crazy" people.
It was your suggestion the he was merely referring to "crazy" people. I'll go along with that out of generosity to your argument. Or if we want to walk that back, I'd be happier with the correct understanding.
At any rate, the reference to crazy people was glued on post hoc to attempt to moderate the breed cleaning phrase.
>And the "cleaning up" he refers to cannot possibly refer to keeping his "crazy family of origin" away from his daughter
He does indeed mean keeping away the girl's grandparents. But keeping his "crazy family of origin" away can not refer to any interpretation of "whole" let alone any hereditary cleansing. So this was neither in his mind nor his intent with the eugenics phrase.
>Timestamp of where he referred to cleaning up the "gene pool" please.
Breeding a population refers to gene selection does it not?
>>Then devise some extremely convoluted reasoning where her actions in some way relate to "cleaning" the whole gene pool.
>Timestamp of this please.
The notion that the phrase "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned up" was actually referring solely to indoctrinating the daughter, controlling her partners and keeping the grandparents way. That is certainly convoluted enough to suffice.
But is this indeed your claim?
>>with the goal of creating "supermen"
>A eugenically bred race of Aryans undoubtedly? No other intended meaning
That's why he chose the word. He could have used "self actualized" or any other easily recognized term. You don't wear a swastika expecting people to think it's Hindu.
>[Superman is a term] used by Friedrich Nietzsche
>How about David Bowie? [who wrote a song named The Supermen]
The suggestion of breeding supermen comes from one place. Not Shaw, Not Bowie, Not a comic book.
And Nietzsche at no point refers to breeding up Übermensch.
That distinctly bizarre misinterpretation of Nietzsche comes from one place: the 1930's German eugenics program. Molyneux wants to breed supermen so he is most definitely did not getting that from Nietzsche but from the eugenics program.
>Is George Bernard Shaw also a Nazi
No, but....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW-iy-9m9SU&feature=youtu.be...
Clearly even the smartest people can be get draw into this. The hidden signals, charisma and especially the intentional ambiguity work well. Of course Shaw was intellectually honest enough to change. As did everyone who survived that period, which apparently did not leave a permanent impression.
>Of course, it's simply not possible he was referring to his daughter, even though he specifically is discussing raising her in the surrounding context of that phrase.
No, he makes no mention of race when talking about the daughter. And that talk has no connection to the phase in question anyway.
>No, the only logical, evidence-based conclusion that makes sense, is that he was referring to non-whites, even though they aren't mentioned.
A cartoon frog now inevitably refers to a hated minority. So absolutely yes, he is indirectly referring to some hated ethnic group(s) without naming them. Yes, most likely non-whites. And "cleaning the gene pool" is far more established in it's meaning then some 4chan meme.
> ...Not just likely, but literally impossible..
The most likely interpretation of an event is the one most reasonable to believe. Deprecating it in favor of something that is less likely is the very definition of bias.
After all, it's possible I'm a brain in a vat. But it's unreasonable to seriously entertain the idea.
That is really quite astonishing: here we have someone leveling the accusation of someone being a ~Nazi/white supremacist/eugenicist, an accusation up there with child molester, and asking for evidence to back up the accusation is so offensive that someone reports it. It makes me wonder what the mentality of HN is going to be a year or two from now.
You mentioned "all phrases must have only one meaning...is obviously not true". I pointed out that, while technically correct, it is a misleading irrelevancy.
Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning. If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the point of irrelevance.
>You are restating your claim in a different way
Actually I'm restating it the same way because that is sufficient: I understand English thus I understand the phrase as well as its author.
>There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase
Correct, not every permutation of every possible English phrases has been explicitly defined. If that were necessary, language would be useless. It would also be circular since every definition would need to be defined too. But just as we learned above the word "eugenics" has one clear dictionary definition, so too does the phrase in question.
>Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?
Because that's how language works generally. We don't have Cartesian certainty if that's what you mean.
> he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming
Which is? The answer to this one question would have saved a lot of typing.
> I doubt you'd think using this form of a proof on a different topic
On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener. The sole ambiguity is when. I won't be questioned for having that understanding. I need not google the phase to know with certainty what it means. Note the grammatical similarity to "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned [of crazy people]"
>without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said
On the contrary I know very well what he is saying and on a variety of topics. Which is why I know he is just a Arthur de Gobineau clone and not a rancher (which alone proves he's a white supremacist, by the way)
>As are accusations of white supremacy. Cult like zeal is a great description for this behavior.
A cult has a central thought leader who makes money spouting nonsense. So no, identifying white supremacists is not cult like.
Although I can imagine victims like Heather Heyer's parents et co may have a strong emotional response. Unless of course we think the incident was a complete driving accident because we can't google the drivers intent at the time.
>Another explanation is that they agree with the phrases, at least partially. That's the case with me.
Of course they agree. That is why I offered the partial explanation you are referring to. If he didn't have followers we would not have a problem. But 1946 is 73 years ago so what would have been zero followers has grown to a mob.
And "Nazism" is comically over used. The new batch of right wing autocrats implement similar but weaker policies with less violence and a smile rather than a scowl. Franco or Mussolini are a better but flawed comparisons. Especially the latter since his exact words and gestures are conscientiously imitated.
>...has a theory...youtube...
A theory. On youtube. Honestly that site has take 20IQ points off of mankind.
And Chomsky is claiming the profit driven media _suppresses_ left leaning ideas to favor right leaning, the opposite of promulgating them. And while an extremely plausible, even likely theory, it is hardly proven to anything like the degree we seem to be insisting on for simple English sentences. Also he is speaking on the BBC which is telling.
>Believing things with no evidence isn't surprising coming from simple minded Trump supporters
Yet they are convinced they have evidence which, in addition to youtube, no doubt was revealed in prayer or heard from uncle Jeb. They also are never going to believe anything written by reality based media or found in a science paper because their demagogue, like all others, seeks to crush the press via his followers.
On a related note, it is possible that if a group of people known to be rational, bright and well informed have developed a consensus, it might not actually be an emotional response but just possibly be correct.
That is one way your claim could be satisfied as true, I was pointing out it fails.
> Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning.
No, I do not make that claim, it was stated as a alternative condition that if satisfied could make your assertion true: "the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning"
> If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the point of irrelevance.
Whether the phrase has an actual accepted meaning of what you say is not irrelevant, but I can see how you'd like that to be considered irrelevant.
> Actually I'm restating it the same way because that is sufficient: I understand English thus I understand the phrase as well as its author.
Yet, you can present no evidence demonstrating this, and it is clearly contrary to the meaning he used in the context of its usage. Have you even listened to the clip in question?
>> There aren't any examples of meanings for that phrase
> Correct, not every permutation of every possible English phrases has been explicitly defined. If that were necessary, language would be useless. It would also be circular since every definition would need to be defined too.
And therefore you can make up any meaning you like an expect it to be accepted?
> But just as we learned above the word "eugenics" has one clear dictionary definition, so too does the phrase in question.
a) There may be one dictionary meaning, but as already discussed, reality is independent of the words we use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics has significant discussion about a variety of different meanings.
b) "so too does the phrase in question" - a claim for which you provide no evidence.
>> Short of the ability to read his mind, how do you know your inferred meaning is correct?
> Because that's how language works generally. We don't have Cartesian certainty if that's what you mean.
You can claim any phrase with no pre-existing accepted meaning means whatever you want, because "that's how language works generally"?
>> he clearly had a meaning very different than what you are claiming
> Which is? The answer to this one question would have saved a lot of typing.
The environment in which he is raising his daughter.
You actually listening to what he actually said would have also saved a lot of typing.
> On the contrary "the whole code base needs to be cleaned of bugs" unambiguously means eliminate them to both the speaker and listener.
Yes, because phrase has a broadly accepted prior meaning: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=the+whole...
> I need not google the phase to know with certainty what it means.
You also seem to believe you need no evidence, or to even listen to the actual context of how it was used.
> Note the grammatical similarity to "The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned [of crazy people]"
Are you suggesting "grammatical similarity" is some sort of a proof? Is this another one of those "how language works generally" situations?
>> without (apparently) even listening to what he actually said
On the contrary I know very well what he is saying and on a variety of topics.
This is not contrary to what I said, which was that you apparently haven't listened to what he even said when using the phrase being debated.
> Which is why I know he is just a Arthur de Gobineau clone and not a rancher (which alone proves he's a white supremacist, by the way)
He is a proven white supremacist because he's not a rancher, or because you "know" he is a clone of a historic figure?
> A cult has a central thought leader who makes money spouting nonsense. So no, identifying white supremacists is not cult like.
a) Wikipedia disagrees with you again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
b) Even if it was true that all cults have a central thought leader, it does not logically follow that some behavior is not cult-like. You were the one who introduced this phrase into the conversation by the way, with regard to how people accept ideas: "When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal."
> Although I can imagine victims like Heather Heyer's parents et co may have a strong emotional response. Unless of course we think the incident was a complete driving accident because we can't google the drivers intent at the time.
I've seen no one other than you suggest that was an accident, but if I did I'd disagree with them. I can also acknowledge the possibility that rhetoric from the likes of Molyneux could plausibly have contributed to that incident, in case you were thinking (or implying, planting a seed in the mind of readers) I'd make some argument otherwise.
>>> Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy.
>> I bet this is your imagination working again. Regardless, Noam Chomsky has a theory of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLcpcytUnWU
> A theory. On youtube. Honestly that site has take 20IQ points off of mankind.
Not sure I see your point. Is the quality or accuracy of an idea affected by where it is hosted?
> And Chomsky is claiming the profit driven media _suppresses_ left leaning ideas to favor right leaning
No, he is discussing the mechanics of how the content of journalism can be influenced without an organized conspiracy existing, which was your claim. ("Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy.")
> And while an extremely plausible, even likely theory, it is hardly proven to anything like the degree we seem to be insisting on for simple English sentences
I'm simply pointing out that a highly regarded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Academic_achievem...) academic disagrees with the idea that a conspiracy is necessary for control to be exerted over journalists.
> Yet they are convinced they have evidence which, in addition to youtube, no doubt was revealed in prayer or heard from uncle Jeb.
You also seem to be convinced you have evidence that supports your belief, but will post no record of it.
> They also are never going to believe anything written by reality based media or found in a science paper because their demagogue, like all others, seeks to crush the press via his followers.
You know with certainty the specifics of how millions of people will behave in the future?
> On a related note, it is possible that if a group of people known to be rational, bright and well informed have developed a consensus, it might not actually be an emotional response but just possibly be correct.
Oh, it's certainly possible for it to be true, the question is whether there is evidence that it is true.
So, is there? If so, would you mind providing some in this thread?
If making any assertions based on supposed actions or words spoken by Molyneux, at a minimum include the timestamp of when he speaks the words you claim he speaks.
Of course, the same standard of proof should be expected of me, so if I slip up please bring it to my attention (as you did above, and I explicitly acknowledged - this is often referred to as intellectual honesty, by the way).
It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death.
>There are many different meanings for that word, could you provide clarity on which meaning you are referring to?
>there are many definitions of the word, your link documents one of them.
I only know one definition and, as you say, you now have it. If you have other definitions in mind, my guessing them is irrelevant: I am obviously not using them. Beyond that I can not help except with this link[1].
But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it. Alas, sometimes when a thesis is indefensible, rhetoricians derail the topic into nonsensical minutiae rather than address the point. It would be regrettable if that were happening.
[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics